Menu

“Male And Female Friendships Always Turn Sexual”. Fuck Off.

A few years ago, this peculiar idea came to me, and I still stick by it – puritans and supporters of promiscuity are of the exact same mindset regarding human nature. They just choose to tackle it in different ways.

Basically, some people – most people? – think that when a man and a woman become intellectually and emotionally close, in other words good friends, things degenerate into a sexual relationship, or the desire to have one, at least on one person’s part. The general idea is that “things get complicated” by default.

Pardon me but I think that’s complete bullshit. Not just because I have male friends, but because I find this entire concept artificial and a product of indoctrination – both religious and “progressive” simultaneously.

Hollywood doesn’t help, by always using narratives involving a man and a woman who, by the end of a film, are by default expected to become sexually involved. Apparently there’s a marketing issue involved as “successful” films have to contain a certain percentage of what everyone wants to see, which is why so many blockbusters follow a certain pattern. Unfortunately, that marketing ploy, combined with an (un)healthy dose of gossip mongering, leads to distorted perceptions in real life, whereby two people of the opposite sex who become close start looking “suspicious” to others, causing the assumption that another type of intimacy is present.

For quite a few years, I’ve been of the opinion that monogamy simply makes sense, as it raises the chances of a stronger family unit (chances, not guarantees, of course) and reduces the risk of getting an STD, which sadly is a rampant phenomenon today. Also, it’s safer to know where one is spreading their genetic material, as proven by the few (but incredibly creepy) cases of couples finding out they were actually second degree relatives. Reality beats fiction, as usual. For that same length of time, people have called me a number of names, regressive being the mildest. Debating the matter has led me to a peculiar conclusion.

People who argue that we are polygamous by nature and can’t help engaging sexually with those we are attracted to, or bond with in general, basically share the view of puritans, who think the same (but fear and reject it instead).

Both views are based on the exacerbation of the animal side of human nature. Both are based on the idea that acknowledging someone’s attractiveness is a bolted impetus to act on that observation and one remains by default at that level, without managing to rise above it (naturally, not by forcing the mind) and form beautiful, long-lasting bonds. And that emotional bonds eventually lead to such thoughts.

Religious folks are brought up with the neurosis of remaining pure, both physically and mentally, to the point of fearing interaction with other people, for no other reason than fearing their own reaction to them.

Progressives, at the opposite pole, think there is no harm in interacting sexually with as many people as one pleases, at random, though medical statistics have shown that to lead to a rise in STDs and abortions, and potentially mess up people emotionally as well.

Reality, of course, is very different than the foundation of these views.

One can form intellectual and spiritual bonds with anyone, transcending barriers such as sex, age, race or whatever you can come up with. Provided that those bonds are genuine and not predatory, of course (I’m referring to the age aspect when minors are involved).

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think the popularisation of this concept – that we are little more than animals – is yet another attempt to drive people apart or make them fear a deep connection to each other.

I agree, as any sensible individual would, that the family is being massively targeted nowadays and ideological groups create needles acrimony.

But I believe it doesn’t stop there. I believe the ultimate goal is to isolate every individual from others, at all cost, and that this needless fear of bonding is part of it.